Why New Zealand put the kibosh on Dotcom’s arena mega-party

It boils down to this: "The Honorable Kim Dotcom, MP."

At the last minute, Kim Dotcom has pulled the plug on his January 20 “Party Party” event at Auckland’s Vector Arena—for which he says 25,000 people had registered for free tickets.

In an e-mail to registered attendees, Dotcom says he cancelled the event after “we received advice that the event could risk breaching electoral laws.”

That advice arrived in the form of phone calls followed up by an e-mail from the Electoral Commission—the independent New Zealand government agency that administers elections and enforces spending and campaign rules.

Further Reading

When invites went out January 14, the Party Party was billed as a release event for Dotcom’s latest album, Good Times, as well as a celebration of his 40th birthday. (The date is no coincidence: January 20 will be the second anniversary of the police raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in Auckland, as well as FBI raids in the US that shut down Megaupload. The FBI and the New Zealand Police chose the date because they knew from intercepts that Dotcom lieutenants Mathias Ortman, Finn Batato, and Bram van der Kolk, usually based in Europe, were all flying into Auckland for Dotcom's birthday celebration).

But earlier, Dotcom indicated the launch of Baboom (the music service formerly known as Megabox) and the launch of his political career were also on his January agenda.

In November last year, he told Wired, “We'll do a soft launch of Baboom in January where you will only see my artist page so you can see how the service works and use different options to purchase music or download it for free. The full site will launch a few months later.”

And, more to the Electoral Commission’s interest, he tweeted on January 14, “My political party will activate non-voters, the youth, the Internet electorate. We are going to make politics exciting. More on January 20.”

The entrepreneur also told the National Business Review that January 20 would serve as a soft launch for his political party (as well as his Good Times album launch).

The Commission says it has been following Dotcom’s tweets and did not say the “Party Party” could not go ahead, but it warned that if it did, there was a risk of it breaking Section 217(2) of New Zealand’s Electoral Act, which states that a person commits the offense of “treating” if they provide free food, drink, or entertainment in a bid to directly or indirectly influence potential voters.

The e-mail—which the Commission forwarded to Ars Technica—notes that over the past week, Dotcom has tweeted that the January event would be restricted to his album launch and birthday celebration. But, it adds, “The Commission remains concerned that the action Kim Dotcom intends to take (limiting the event to his 40th birthday and the launch of his music album) may not be sufficient to eliminate the risk of the activity falling within the scope of the treating provisions. This is because the event was originally intended to include the Internet Party launch.”

The politics of dancing

There was also political messiness. Whaleoil, a right-wing blog, leaked an Internet Party strategy document—embarrassing a left-wing blogger and a journalist who were both revealed as having ties to the Internet Party (the journalist, Scoop.co.nz editor and General Manager Alistair Thompson, has since left his post—although accounts vary over whether he is on sabbatical or has quit.) The strategy document also revealed a proposal for a tent city for 300 volunteers on the grounds of Dotcom’s $25 million rented mansion.

It could also raise memories of Dotcom's 2011 pledge to host Mega in New Zealand, and use profits from Mega—and the bandwidth business generated by hosting Mega domestically—to fund investment in a second submarine cable to the US, while using profits to fund free internet for all residential NZ customers (in the event, Dotcom decided to host Mega offshore).

Enlarge/ Dotcom huddles with co-accused Mathias Ortmann (left) and journalist Alastair Thompson at Dotcom's album preview party at his mansion, December 13, 2013. Thompson, the editor and general manager of left-leaning news site Scoop, was subsequently revealed to be a close advisor to Dotcom on the creation of The Internet Party.

Chris Keall

Dotcom did not immediately respond to Ars Technica's questions about when the soft launch of Baboom and the Internet Party will now take place.

Meanwhile, the chattering classes in New Zealand have been sent into a frenzy by the pending launch of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party, which he says will focus on issues concerning Internet freedom.

The key question is whether the party can cross the 5 percent threshold needed to gain representation under New Zealand’s proportional representation system—which would mean it would have 5% of the representatives in Parliament (which has 120 members minimum, with scope for a handful more under a complicated “overhang” formula).

So far, no polls have been taken since Dotcom formally announced the Internet Party, but registrations of 25,000 for the January 20 event indicate a healthy groundswell of interest (New Zealand has a population of 4.5 million; 2.3 million voted at the last general election, pointing to the Internet Party needing around 120,000 votes to cross that 5 percent threshold.)

Dotcom’s idea is that even if he enters Parliament with just a handful of members of Parliament, the Internet Party could play a kingmaker role as the right-wing National Party (currently in power) and the allied Labour and Green parties (whose combined vote is roughly equal to National’s) vie for his support to form a government.

Some political commentators believe Dotcom does have a good chance of crossing the threshold.

Dotcom has already proved he can wow youth. “A crowd of thousands of young Kiwis screaming 'KIM DOTCOM!' from the top of their lungs for a solid 10 minutes” says TV3 in its report on his performance at the Rhythm and Vines music festival on New Year’s Eve.

And at anti-spy bill rallies in town halls, he has spoken to hundreds, many of them closer to middle age.

Taking a stand

Dotcom was also a high-profile campaigner against two controversial pieces of legislation during 2013 (as were the opposition Labour and Green parties).

One was the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, which made it legal for the GCSB—roughly speaking, New Zealand’s equivalent of the CIA—to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents. The legislation was sparked by the GCSB’s illegal surveillance of Kim Dotcom (who has legal status as a New Zealand resident, though not full citizenship) in the buildup to the January 20 raid. The legislation does not apply retrospectively. The Court of Appeal has upheld Dotcom’s right to sue the GCSB following its admission of wrongdoing. The case will be heard in March.

The other was The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, which gives the GCSB sweeping new powers. Service providers were already required to make their networks interceptable; now they must also consult with the GCSB on network design and choice of hardware and software partners.

Both pieces of legislation passed, but Dotcom was an articulate, high-profile opponent of each of the so-called “spy bills” both at a series of public rallies attended by thousands and in a televised select committee showdown with Prime Minister John Key—which ranged from Dotcom’s technical critique of the GSCB Bill, which he said would help facilitate New Zealand’s participation in an international mass surveillance “spy cloud” to a schoolyard slang match as Dotcom’s submission wound up (Dotcom: "Why are you turning red, Prime Minister?"; Key: "I'm not. Why are you sweating?").

Dotcom will also presumably oppose the recently introduced “Skynet” or “Three-strikes” Internet file sharing law, aka the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act. The law has two major flaws, say critics. One is that it makes an Internet account holder (such as a householder, employer, or school) responsible for anyone who illegally downloads from their account, even if the account holder is totally ignorant of the fact that their account is being abused (as in the case of a soldier who submitted he was overseas serving in Afghanistan when three songs were illegally downloaded using his Internet connection back in New Zealand; he was fined $NZ255.97 ($US225). The second is Section 122, the “presumption of guilt” in that section of the Act.

There's one fly in the ointment, though. Disaffected young voters and Internet freedom advocates in the Labour-Greens bloc may not be impressed by Dotcom’s decision to donate $50,000 to conservative politician John Banks when he contested the Auckland Mayoralty in 2010.

Banks, who lost the Mayoral election to the Labour-aligned Len Brown, later got into hot water for declaring the $50,000 donation as anonymous. Crown Law, which asserts he did know the source of the donation, is prosecuting Banks for electoral fraud. The case will be heard early this year; publicity surrounding it has already forced Banks to resign from Parliament where he is the sole MP for the hard right ACT Party. Banks did not return Dotcom’s plea for help after he was jailed in January 2012. The pair fell out and Dotcom is now an enthusiastic witness for the prosecution.

The electoral fraud case is intriguing, but some of Dotcom’s Internet freedom-advocating supporters might wonder why he donated $50,000 to Banks—a long-time authoritarian and social conservative. In keeping with his previous voting patterns, Banks supported both of the spy bills. Dotcom says he and Banks had a shared interest in “improving digital business."

Further muddying the waters, former National Party and ACT leader Don Brash says he has consulted with Kim Dotcom on Internet Party policy.

On Twitter, Dotcom said, “The Internet Party is neither left or right. It’s UP!”

The party’s logo is purple and white—politically neutral colors (and also those used by Orcon, a local ISP that hired Dotcom as its pitchman. He continues to appear in Orcon ads and push the ISP on his Twitter feed).

On InternetNZ’s Policy Advisory Group forum, members are looking for detailed information from the Internet Party—detail that will prove the political newcomer is serious about an open, uncapturable Internet, and not just Dotcom showboating.

They’re likely to get it. Mega’s CEO is Vikram Kumar, the former policy insider at the government’s State Services Commission and one-time CEO of InternetNZ (which administers the .nz domain). Kumar was one of the most effective critics of the spy bills.

For his part, Kumar stresses to Ars Technica that while he may give the Internet Party advice, like every Mega employee, he is “available to any and every political party” who wants to pick his brains on policy.

On social media, there has been no shortage of jokes about how the Internet Party gaining seats in Parliament could help Dotcom’s casse. "How can the Prime Minister extradite me if I am the Prime Minister! - Kim Dotcom. International super villain,” quipped comedian Guy Williams (@guywilliamsguy).

In truth, there would be no legal advantage.

The Dotcom affair has highlighted the best and the worst of New Zealand’s justice system.

The worst has been the GCSB overstepping its domestic surveillance powers and police partaking in an over-the-top raid on Dotcom mansion, seemingly in a boyish attempt to impress observing FBI agents.

The best has been more evidence that New Zealand has a strong, independent judiciary, immune to political pressure. The GCSB and the Police have been called out on numerous procedural and legal blunders. And whatever promises Prime Minister John Key might have made to the US about a quick extradition, the case, and any appeals, are now set to take years. Key is left fuming on the sidelines. In power, the Internet Party would hold no more sway.

Dotcom—or a successful Internet Party candidate—would gain one key advantage, however. Members of Parliament are allowed to talk in the House of Representatives under privilege, meaning they have almost unfettered freedom of speech, as well as freedom from defamation laws. Dotcom often tells journalists his theories about the GCSB, the Prime Minister, and others that stray deep into libel territory and can’t be repeated in public. Under Parliamentary privilege, we could see Dotcom in full song—and that could be something that at least 5 percent of New Zealanders would happily vote to see.

On the face of it, Section 47(1) of New Zealand's Electoral Act says you must be a citizen to stand for Parliament. However, in September, Dotcom told the Washington Post, "When I made that statement, my lawyers were still looking into it, and their preliminary answer was that you can only run as a citizen of New Zealand. But they went through the full several hundred pages of New Zealand election law, and they found that if I’m a permanent resident of New Zealand who’s lived here for more than a year and is a registered voter—which I will be in November—you can run for office."

The next general election is expected in November of this year (under New Zealand's parliamentary system, the government gets to choose the ballot date; the next election must be held before January 24, 2015).

73 Reader Comments

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

Dotcom—or a successful Internet Party candidate—would gain one key advantage, however. Members of Parliament are allowed to talk in the House of Representatives under privilege, meaning they have almost unfettered freedom of speech, as well as freedom from defamation laws. Dotcom often tells journalists his theories about the GCSB, the Prime Minister, and others that stray deep into libel territory and can’t be repeated in public. Under Parliamentary privilege, we could see Dotcom in full song—and that could be something that at least 5 percent of New Zealanders would happily vote to see.

I'm not in NZ, but I would pay good money to see that happen. Oh, please, please let this happen.

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

And I believe it's a wrong assumption, AFAIK, you're not supposed nor expected to carry a dictionary when reading the New York Times or any kind of journal for that matter.And no, I still haven't figured what that words means. By your logic, get rid of every detailed articles on ars concerning matters of physics or computer science because one has unlimited and almost free access to some kind of source online?

If you google the word, you will quickly come to a definition like "kibosh - n. Informal: A checking or restraining element [origin unknown]" which you absolutely have access to by virtue of having access to Ars because both require only an internet connection. You could also determine the word's meaning from the context of its usage by applying some basic critical thinking skills.

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

And I believe it's a wrong assumption, AFAIK, you're not supposed nor expected to carry a dictionary when reading the New York Times or any kind of journal for that matter.And no, I still haven't figured what that words means. By your logic, get rid of every detailed articles on ars concerning matters of physics or computer science because one has unlimited and almost free access to some kind of source online?

If you google the word, you will quickly come to a definition like "kibosh - n. Informal: A checking or restraining element [origin unknown]" which you absolutely have access to by virtue of having access to Ars because both require only an internet connection.

missing my point aren't you?Thanks for serving a definition to it, but my point still stands, if I have to google every word I don't understand I'm gonna have a bad time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

That being said, I wouldn't mind at all an in-depth article on how this kind of lingo (be it jewish or of any other language) came up to be so prominent in tech circles and american publications, I think that'd be interesting.

So where is the limit, should every word not in the 1000 most common English words be defined in every article? Also, Jewish is not the name of a language, the two common languages spoken by most Jewish people are Hebrew and Yiddish (which is actually middle German.) But to answer your question, yes, you should look up any words you don't know when reading something. While it might be somewhat helpful on the part of the writer to define particularly uncommon words or technical jargon, the onus is on the reader to understand the text.

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

And I believe it's a wrong assumption, AFAIK, you're not supposed nor expected to carry a dictionary when reading the New York Times or any kind of journal for that matter.And no, I still haven't figured what that words means. By your logic, get rid of every detailed articles on ars concerning matters of physics or computer science because one has unlimited and almost free access to some kind of source online?

If you google the word, you will quickly come to a definition like "kibosh - n. Informal: A checking or restraining element [origin unknown]" which you absolutely have access to by virtue of having access to Ars because both require only an internet connection.

missing my point aren't you?Thanks for serving a definition to it, but my point still stands, if I have to google every word I don't understand I'm gonna have a bad time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

Since "kibosh" is a perfectly cromulent word in the English and American language - it's both in the Oxford dictionary and merriam webster, I'm actually still not sure what your point is. That ars should avoid using advanced language to not confuse people with insufficient vocabulary? Or just get rid of all words with foreign origins? (Ouch, that would really lower the nive.. standard)

Point in case English isn't my mother tongue, but I still knew the word *and* even if not would've been capable of getting an idea what it means due to the context it's being used in (very useful skill to pick up when learning other languages.. or your own)

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

And I believe it's a wrong assumption, AFAIK, you're not supposed nor expected to carry a dictionary when reading the New York Times or any kind of journal for that matter.And no, I still haven't figured what that words means. By your logic, get rid of every detailed articles on ars concerning matters of physics or computer science because one has unlimited and almost free access to some kind of source online?

If you google the word, you will quickly come to a definition like "kibosh - n. Informal: A checking or restraining element [origin unknown]" which you absolutely have access to by virtue of having access to Ars because both require only an internet connection.

missing my point aren't you?Thanks for serving a definition to it, but my point still stands, if I have to google every word I don't understand I'm gonna have a bad time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

That being said, I wouldn't mind at all an in-depth article on how this kind of lingo (be it jewish or of any other language) came up to be so prominent in tech circles and american publications, I think that'd be interesting.

I'm terribly sorry the world does not bend over backwards to make itself more easily accessible to you and your vocabulary. I really apologize that you may be put out by the need to apply contextual thinking, or even perhaps basic research skills, to the task of learning a new word. I am afraid in the future this may come up again, so in the immortal words of Mr. Douglas Adams:

"We apologize for the inconvenience."

/s

~edit~ And just a thought, if you were to google every word you don't know, you would quickly know many more words and not only need to use google less, but also have extra knowledge that could be useful throughout your lifetime.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

Supporters of internet civil rights have many upstanding, reputable spokespeople. They're quoted in Ars articles on the regular.

I don't mind having a few extras that are less reputable and upstanding. A serious application of disrespect and irreverence can be effective at mobilizing certain demographics to action. Kim may be a dick, but he's a dick to the right people/organizations.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

Supporters of internet civil rights have many upstanding, reputable spokespeople. They're quoted in Ars articles on the regular.

I don't mind having a few extras that are less reputable and upstanding. A serious application of disrespect and irreverence can be effective at mobilizing certain demographics to action. Kim may be a dick, but he's a dick to the right people/organizations.

I understand the sentiment, but standing up for rights such as internet freedom or freedom of speech, always means that you'll also have to defend giant assholes even if you'd be happy if that wasn't the case.

There's a long history of important battles for public rights being fought for scumbags - in the end being an asshole doesn't negate your rights.

Thanks for serving a definition to it, but my point still stands, if I have to google every word I don't understand I'm gonna have a bad time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

I'm not even a native speaker and don't have trouble with words like that.

If you're actively refusing to learn any new words and get offended by publications that do use words you do not know (yet), maybe you should choose to read something different? There should be enough that assumes a smaller vocabulary from their readers than ars does, yet covers the same or similar topics.

And language in general is something that's changing constantly, with new words getting created, becoming common and becoming obsolete. You may refuse to accept this, but the world, and with that most publications, won't care. If you insist on your fixed vocabulary, you're probably not part of the demographic the publication is aimed at anyways.

Thanks for serving a definition to it, but my point still stands, if I have to google every word I don't understand I'm gonna have a bad time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one!)

I'm not even a native speaker and don't have trouble with words like that.

If you reread the original post, I think the real problem becomes clear:

"Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?"

As others have said, it's been a part of the English language for a long time. I'm not why you seem so insistent on pointing out its Jewish origin. Origin doesn't matter once it becomes part of the language. It is perfectly reasonable for Ars to assume that its readers know what "kibosh" means, or can look it up or infer the meaning. The only thing unreasonable is you expecting Ars to know what your personal vocabulary quirks are.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

Supporters of internet civil rights have many upstanding, reputable spokespeople. They're quoted in Ars articles on the regular.

I don't mind having a few extras that are less reputable and upstanding. A serious application of disrespect and irreverence can be effective at mobilizing certain demographics to action. Kim may be a dick, but he's a dick to the right people/organizations.

I understand the sentiment, but standing up for rights such as internet freedom or freedom of speech, always means that you'll also have to defend giant assholes even if you'd be happy if that wasn't the case.

There's a long history of important battles for public rights being fought for scumbags - in the end being an asshole doesn't negate your rights.

You're actually wrong at some level. When sacks of sh*t take up a cause it brings the cause in general down. We remember the nobility of individuals who stood up to authority and are remembered as a result; I don't have to list them but all of us can name a few. What about the craps of life who did the same and failed utterly?

Well we can say the Koh brothers are defending the right's of capitalism but I don't think they'll be in the history books. They're kind of a modern version of Pullman but he's even less forgotten. Anyone remember his Pullman City? I won't go to the extremes and make this a "hitler" argument since it isn't.

But that's the problem with causes, that when prominent/famous individuals join it they became partially the ace of it and it either helps or hurts the cause in general.I don't mind a political party that is attempting to assert conversation into the political limelight but still, he's not the person to do it and makes it a joke with his presence when in actuality, a lot of countries could use a political party to generate dialogue and debate.

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

As lord Blackadder might say "Kibosh, tis a common word, down our way". Im never comfortable hearing the internet issues discussed as civil rughts. It sounds like the reverse of when people rile against "feminazis" , an attempt to discredit using phonetics.

I think if and when Dotcom's party is able to reach 5% treshold, to prevent them becoming kingmaker, the leading party, NAtional or Green/Labor, will have no problem of getting endorsement and brown envelopes from the content holders.

For the **AAs Kim Dotcom becoming kingmaker is nightmare #2, the worst one would be him becoming the prime minister. No price is too big to prevent that.

Perhaps kibosh is a Jewish / Yiddish word but the Irish seem to have the inside track.

kibosh (n.) 1836, kye-bosk, in slang phrase put the kibosh on, of unknown origin, despite intense speculation. The earliest citation is in Dickens. Looks Yiddish, but origin in early 19c. English slang seems to argue against this. One candidate is Irish caip bháis, caipín báis "cap of death," sometimes said to be the black cap a judge would don when pronouncing a death sentence, but in other sources identified as a gruesome method of execution "employed by Brit. forces against 1798 insurgents" [Bernard Share, "Slanguage, A Dictionary of Irish Slang"]. Or it may somehow be connected with Turkish bosh (see bosh).

If anyone wants evidence that hiding down-voted posts is good, and maybe even doesn't go far enough, the first page of this comment thread is sufficient.

Back on-topic, it's hard to see how Kim Dotcom could have thought it was a good idea to hold a free event to build visibility for his political party. Of course it's a violation of NZ's "treating" laws. He could have easily got around the restrictions by just having an unrelated "birthday" event, then launching his political party the next day, riding on the goodwill from the previous day's event. It would skirt the "treating" laws, while achieving the same outcome.

He clearly needs to use some of his fortune to hire some political staffers who have a clue how the process works.

And yet, through the whole article, not a single word about the (already existing) Pirate Party of NZ, and how it's going to affect them, having a competitor like Dotcom, with his moneyed stunts, undermining the more serious positions on the same issues.

If Dotcom was really serious about the issues, he'd work with the Pirates, and make a more effective campaign.If he's after a new promotion vector, he'd form his own party.

And yet, through the whole article, not a single word about the (already existing) Pirate Party of NZ, and how it's going to affect them, having a competitor like Dotcom, with his moneyed stunts, undermining the more serious positions on the same issues.

If Dotcom was really serious about the issues, he'd work with the Pirates, and make a more effective campaign.If he's after a new promotion vector, he'd form his own party.

And yet, through the whole article, not a single word about the (already existing) Pirate Party of NZ, and how it's going to affect them, having a competitor like Dotcom, with his moneyed stunts, undermining the more serious positions on the same issues.

If Dotcom was really serious about the issues, he'd work with the Pirates, and make a more effective campaign.If he's after a new promotion vector, he'd form his own party.

It's the eternal problem of a party built around a personality. The party exists to get the guy into an elected seat, rather than to deal with the stated policies and issues. Which is kinda my point, kinda like how Wikileaks has become more about Assange than blowing whistles.Were Dotcom more concerned about the issues, than the marketing, he'd have joined with the Pirate Party, even run as a candidate with them, and helped work on the issues.

Oh, that election that Dotcom had nothing to do with, and no party with which to run? Your logic is infallible.

It being Kim Dotcom, I don't see him hitching his horse to someone else's wagon. He strikes me as the sort that has to be running the show. So, he joins the Pirate Party, there's a clash of leadership, and there's a split, they go their separate ways, etc, etc. How about the guy just starts up his own party and save all that hassle and (potential, at least) damage to the Pirate Party, which isn't much of a force to be reckoned with in the first place?

It being Kim Dotcom, I don't see him hitching his horse to someone else's wagon.

Historically, Kim Dotcom has been mainly interested in what's good for himself and his bank account. If you look at his bio you'll find several occasions where he changed allegiance when the price was right. Does NZ really need yet another pompous, self centered person in parliament?

Would it be too hard for you people not to assume every visitor to an article written in english knows jewish lingo?

I think they assume that every visitor to these articles has access to the near totality of human knowledge via the search engine of their choice. Clearly you do, since you figured out what kibosh means.

On topic, I'm always torn between thinking that Kim Dotcom is a gigantic asshole, and the fact that he's fighting against even bigger assholes. I ultimately support him, but wish the supporters of internet civil rights had a better spokesperson.

As lord Blackadder might say "Kibosh, tis a common word, down our way". Im never comfortable hearing the internet issues discussed as civil rughts. It sounds like the reverse of when people rile against "feminazis" , an attempt to discredit using phonetics.

I disagree, I feel that privacy is a civil right, and that its utter lack on the internet is a civil rights issue. While it may not be quite as serious as ending segregation, it is important. Dr. King's privacy was violated by the same agencies who today have expanded to spying on everyone everywhere, going so far as to blackmail him into committing suicide or they would reveal that he had had an affair. Those same people were responsible for McCarthyism and the creation of blacklists for alleged communists.

To say that it's only an "internet issue" implies that because it happens on the internet it is less important, but if the government were doing the same things they do routinely via the internet in an analog world people would be rioting in the streets. Imagine if it became known that police routinely stalk people, making note of their precise location dozens or hundreds of times a day just in case at some point they are ever suspected of a crime. Or if pre-internet it came out that ever piece of mail was opened and read to check for photocopied books. Or if your right to fly (see: article 4 section 2 of the constitution, also Edwards V State of California) could be denied based on who you voted for in the last election or what clubs you join.

Dang I didn't know New Zealand was passing so many stupid laws these days

Actually, back in the 2000s Californian TV dropped all Arnold Schwarzenegger movies because he was running for governor and showing a movie with him meant they had to give equal air time to all the other candidates as well. Still stupid?